I find myself in two minds over this: if there is another referendum, it will have to be obvious that it is not a re-run of the last one, otherwise (as one Brexiter observed) they will then want to go for a "best of three"! So a three-option question as is now being generally proposed (i.e., all in, all out or Chequers) would seem sensible - except that Chequers has already been torpedoed by both the Brexiters and the EU, so what form of "soft Brexit" would be considered? As has been observed, it seems virtually impossible for May to come up with anything that would be acceptable to the EU and, if she ever did, it would be unacceptable to parliament...

In a last-gasp attempt to try and get some kind of Brexit deal with Europe, Theresa May has commissioned life-size latex puppets of Dr Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt and herself to send to Brussels next week.

‘It’s no secret that the real versions have no credibility whatsoever throughout Europe, are thoroughly despised by all 27 remaining EU Leaders and have about as much ability to negotiate as a fractious child who’s having a particularly bad day and has had a bag of their favourite sweeties taken off them,’ said a Cabinet Office spokesman.

I have, somewhat despairingly, come to the conclusion that our senior politicians on all sides can no longer conceal the fact that their collective management competence is nowhere near enough to manage a small whelk stall. At a time when they should be working together as much as possible to deal with Brexit, both May and Corbyn are totally focused on the internal politics going on in their respective parties. History will not be kind to them or to the MPs who seem to be stirring up as much trouble as they can - but sadly, none of them seem to care, and maybe they don't even realise just how depressingly bad they are.

The FT on "no-deal Brexit." More irrational scare-mongering, of course.

Dominic Raab, Britain’s Brexit Secretary, this week published the latest in a series of notices spelling out what might happen in the event of “no deal” between Britain and the EU.

By issuing such a huge tranche (28 were published on Thursday and more are expected soon) Mr Raab wants to convey the impression that the government is increasing efforts to cope with a “no deal” outcome if it arises.

But Mr Raab and his colleagues are going to find it hard to convince people outside government, especially British business, that the UK is remotely prepared for such a stark eventuality.

The value of the documents published this week is that they spell out what would happen in specific sectors if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal. But there is little evidence that Whitehall is anywhere near committing the extra resources or personnel that would be needed for a no-deal scenario.

“The papers that have been published thus far are very descriptive,” says Tim Durrant of the Institute for Government, a think-tank. “The documents are strongly focused on trying to persuade the private sector to prepare for a no-deal outcome. There’s also a focus on setting out how the UK might respond legally where ambiguities arise.”

But the papers also indicate that Whitehall is a long way from being ready for “no deal”.

“The notices talk about new government processes that businesses will have to comply with in the case of ‘no deal’, but there’s little sign that these are in place yet,” says Mr Durrant.

An example of the lack of sufficient preparation came in a report by the National Audit Office this week into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of the ministries most heavily affected by Brexit.

The NAO said Defra officials had failed to hire enough vets and that this could severely disrupt exports of UK food.

The NAO also declared that plans to increase patrols of fishing waters were unlikely to be ready, and the UK’s £17bn chemical export market to the EU was facing the possibility of grinding to a halt.

Or take the issue of driving licences. This week’s technical notices describe how, in the event of no deal, UK nationals driving on to the continent will need a separate document called an International Driving Permit.

However, delivering these IDPs to the British public looks like a logistical nightmare. At present, 89 post office branches issue around 100,000 IDPs annually. If there is no deal in March, up to 4,500 post offices may need to issue between 100,000 and 7m IDPs in the first year. But the NAO recently said it has not seen any detailed plans from the Department for Transport on how to deliver this.

There are two scenarios for “no deal”. The UK and EU will either descend into complete acrimony with no mutual co-operation to contain the fallout. Alternatively, the UK and EU governments could take emergency action to ensure that basic things like transport links are not disrupted.

A glimpse of how ministers are focused on the latter scenario can be seen with the efforts by Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, to negotiate aviation pacts with individual EU countries to ensure planes continue to fly in the event of “no deal”. But according to one report, Mr Grayling’s attempt to conclude these side deals has been rebuffed by the commission.

This exposes one of the central problems for the British government. In many areas, what the UK seems to be saying to the EU is: “If there’s no deal, we are happy to keep things as they are.” The trouble is that the EU will suddenly find itself dealing with the UK as a third country — and in many sectors, EU states will find it hard to make the necessary legal adjustments.

In short, there is no way the UK can possibly be prepared for a no-deal scenario. Mr Raab’s technical notices are useful because they try to set out the huge challenges in specific sectors. But a no-deal Brexit is something every reasonable politician would want to avoid at any cost.